Okay, now it seems you're suggesting that an album should only ever be sold... once?
What the RIAA and other content providers seem to be approching here is a model in which copyrighted material is treated much the same as legal tender with the RIAA et al acting as the government. Each time a copyrighted work changes hands or is multplied and propagated would be regarded as a taxable transaction for which the RIAA should collect tribute. It's certainly not a scenario any of us would like to see come to pass, but given Congress' actions of the past decade, anything is possible.
I someow recall it originating as "Simultaneous Posting Across Multiple Newsgroups" (SPAMN) in the old usenet days and eventually being shortened to SPAM and its meaning being expanded to include unsolicited email. Been a long time though and my memory has fogged up a bit.
End[sic] why is it that all the legal stuf seems to have become so important in the Open-Source/Unix® world. Can't we just go on and write interesting programs and good code?
Perhaps because the corporate world would rather that you didn't have that freedom. They want you to pay them for the privilege and the legal system is how they'll try and force you to.
I disagree. Unless someone can point to it and say for certain 'this is it' the secret is still a secret and anything else is just guessing. How the courts would view this is another matter however, and your view may be the one they take.
As to wheather or not SCO 'have' to allow the Linux community to correct the situation, common decency may say so, but reality says that it's a matter of whose lawyers make the better argument.
One possible, and admittedly tinfoil hat, reason for not revealing the infringing code is that SCO doesn't want it removed. If they don't reveal it, it remains a trade secret and if it's not removed they can force linux distributors to pay licensing fees effectively hijacking linux (2.4 and later) as their property. In this case the only alternative for the Linux/OSS community would be to roll back the kernel to 2.2 (SCO claims this kernel is clean) and completely rewrite all the additions to bring it back to current functionality. A big time set back by any standards. Again this is a tinfoil hat scenario, but given SCO's behavior I wouldn't put it past them.
And, if you're not a law student, a litigant, or a criminal, it's probably the best education as to the workings of our legal system.
Re:Too many witnesses that will say otherwise
on
Darl & SCO Overview
·
· Score: 1
And am I the only one who finds it just the slightest bit fishy that after repeatedly trying to buy the copyrights from Novell, SCO suddenly finds some document that seems to prove they did after all, but it is not anywhere in Novell's files nor was the alleged transfer ever registered with the Copyright Office! (Yes, I know, you don't have to register such things, but lawyers always tell you that registering adds validity to your claim when you go after someone.) Excuse me? I don't believe that crap for a minute, and a lawyer who can't get a jury to think it's bogus isn't good enough to work for IBM.
Moot point since Novell has essentially publicly ackowledged the validity of the ammendment. Methinks Novell spoke too hastily.
If someone copied code, and he is NOT employed by Linus, can Linus be sued for it? This is of course assuming we're talking about the kernel.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Linus have final approval authority for new additions to the kernel? IANAL but it seem to me, if this is the case, it could potentially make him liable on some level. Athough he could claim ignorance of the code's origin, it could be argued that the onus is on him to verify.
I cycle the power once per month to prevent the drive head from sticking.
Is sticktion(sp?) really still a problem with modern hard drives? Besides, even if you don't actually use your system I'd think there'd be enough random disk activity (from cron scripts, etc.) to prevent this.
Now here is a fundamental difference. Humanity is not allowed to do this anymore unless we bring along a baggie with which to carry the excrement back out. Humanity has evolved to the point of being so far separate from the rest of nature that we cannot engage in natural functions because it is deemed harmful to the environment. We have become aliens on our own planet.
What other species can make that claim?
Personally, I think that any sufficiently evolved species would be content to live as a part of nature rather than trying to separate itself from nature. Both the environmental extreemists and the exploitationists seek to separate us.
Thir party can't do business and goes out of business while waiting for the court's decision. Plaintif drops complaint so court doesn't have to render a decision. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Reviews posted on slashdot don't necessarily go through the same review and editing process that the print media uses. Neither are the reviewers necessarily professional writers. They may, however, be subject matter experts, which would make their observations of some interest.
As a result of comments such as Painter's being widely diseminated, society has been programmed into believing that, for certain crimes, reform is not possible; ie. rape, child molestation, and now, computer crime.
As for reform, this is up to the individual, not the prison system. It takes a willingness to reform in order for it to be successful. And reform is made all the more difficult as a result of the attitudes described above.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, now it seems you're suggesting that an album should only ever be sold... once?
What the RIAA and other content providers seem to be approching here is a model in which copyrighted material is treated much the same as legal tender with the RIAA et al acting as the government. Each time a copyrighted work changes hands or is multplied and propagated would be regarded as a taxable transaction for which the RIAA should collect tribute. It's certainly not a scenario any of us would like to see come to pass, but given Congress' actions of the past decade, anything is possible.
I someow recall it originating as "Simultaneous Posting Across Multiple Newsgroups" (SPAMN) in the old usenet days and eventually being shortened to SPAM and its meaning being expanded to include unsolicited email. Been a long time though and my memory has fogged up a bit.
End[sic] why is it that all the legal stuf seems to have become so important in the Open-Source/Unix® world. Can't we just go on and write interesting programs and good code?
Perhaps because the corporate world would rather that you didn't have that freedom. They want you to pay them for the privilege and the legal system is how they'll try and force you to.
All five remaining DOS users are likely to be severely complacement.
;o)
And will likely turn to Linux as a REplacement.
Now, the last time I checked, there's no law saying that car companies HAVE to offer a warranty.
What do you suppose lemon laws are?
Kevin Mitnik perhaps?
If it's in the Linux kernel, it's not a secret.
I disagree. Unless someone can point to it and say for certain 'this is it' the secret is still a secret and anything else is just guessing. How the courts would view this is another matter however, and your view may be the one they take.
As to wheather or not SCO 'have' to allow the Linux community to correct the situation, common decency may say so, but reality says that it's a matter of whose lawyers make the better argument.
One possible, and admittedly tinfoil hat, reason for not revealing the infringing code is that SCO doesn't want it removed. If they don't reveal it, it remains a trade secret and if it's not removed they can force linux distributors to pay licensing fees effectively hijacking linux (2.4 and later) as their property. In this case the only alternative for the Linux/OSS community would be to roll back the kernel to 2.2 (SCO claims this kernel is clean) and completely rewrite all the additions to bring it back to current functionality. A big time set back by any standards. Again this is a tinfoil hat scenario, but given SCO's behavior I wouldn't put it past them.
And, if you're not a law student, a litigant, or a criminal, it's probably the best education as to the workings of our legal system.
And am I the only one who finds it just the slightest bit fishy that after repeatedly trying to buy the copyrights from Novell, SCO suddenly finds some document that seems to prove they did after all, but it is not anywhere in Novell's files nor was the alleged transfer ever registered with the Copyright Office! (Yes, I know, you don't have to register such things, but lawyers always tell you that registering adds validity to your claim when you go after someone.) Excuse me? I don't believe that crap for a minute, and a lawyer who can't get a jury to think it's bogus isn't good enough to work for IBM.
Moot point since Novell has essentially publicly ackowledged the validity of the ammendment. Methinks Novell spoke too hastily.
That's just the current law. In another few years that will be extended to '50 years after the death of the author's last known decendant'.
If it's a classic matchbox or hotwheels it's too valuable. Sell it on ebay instead and you could buy
SCO and have change left over.
If someone copied code, and he is NOT employed by Linus, can Linus be sued for it? This is of course assuming we're talking about the kernel.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Linus have final approval authority for new additions to the kernel? IANAL but it seem to me, if this is the case, it could potentially make him liable on some level. Athough he could claim ignorance of the code's origin, it could be argued that the onus is on him to verify.
I cycle the power once per month to prevent the drive head from sticking.
Is sticktion(sp?) really still a problem with modern hard drives? Besides, even if you don't actually use your system I'd think there'd be enough random disk activity (from cron scripts, etc.) to prevent this.
we both crap in the woods
Now here is a fundamental difference. Humanity is not allowed to do this anymore unless we bring along a baggie with which to carry the excrement back out. Humanity has evolved to the point of being so far separate from the rest of nature that we cannot engage in natural functions because it is deemed harmful to the environment. We have become aliens on our own planet.
What other species can make that claim?
Personally, I think that any sufficiently evolved species would be content to live as a part of nature rather than trying to separate itself from nature. Both the environmental extreemists and the exploitationists seek to separate us.
Now *there's* an idea. Class action suit with a demand that all SysV code and 'methods' be GPL'd as recompense (to protect Linux from future attack).
Where's the sign-up sheet?
And it was probably decaf to boot.
Can you think of a better way to stress test your servers?
Makes you wonder why Intel chooses a place like New Mexico, which is facing serious water shortage problems, to put its manufacturing plants.
If we produced two kids each time we coupled... well, I don't even want to think about it.
I doubt their prison system accepts transfers from the U.S.
Thir party can't do business and goes out of business while waiting for the court's decision. Plaintif drops complaint so court doesn't have to render a decision. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Maybe they should rename their product 'Moose Balls'. You can bet it would achieve product name recognition and no one would be likely to steal it.
Reviews posted on slashdot don't necessarily go through the same review and editing process that the print media uses. Neither are the reviewers necessarily professional writers. They may, however, be subject matter experts, which would make their observations of some interest.
As a result of comments such as Painter's being widely diseminated, society has been programmed into believing that, for certain crimes, reform is not possible; ie. rape, child molestation, and now, computer crime.
As for reform, this is up to the individual, not the prison system. It takes a willingness to reform in order for it to be successful. And reform is made all the more difficult as a result of the attitudes described above.